General US Politics

[Lord Raven]

5 minutes ago, Phillius the Crestfallen said:

Why not both (da dada da da)? He's certainly a rather successful con-man, but his post-election actions indicate a clear lack of understanding of the political world.

I think it's apathy and not idiocy.

His speaking style is really awful though. I cannot listen to a Trump speech the whole way through without something close to an aneurysm.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Time the Crestfallen]

2 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

I think it's apathy and not idiocy.

Something something Hanlon's Razor.

Realistically speaking, it's probably a mixture of both. He's not a complete idiot, but he's hardly some sort of Machiavellian genius. 

[Shoblongoo]

23 minutes ago, Phillius the Crestfallen said:

He's not a complete idiot, but he's hardly some sort of Machiavellian genius. 

Low Animal Cunning, I'd call it.

[eclipse]

1 hour ago, Lord Raven said:

I think it's apathy and not idiocy.

His speaking style is really awful though. I cannot listen to a Trump speech the whole way through without something close to an aneurysm.

I live with someone that speaks like Trump.  It's awful.

It's like he tries to say something, then changes his mind, and starts another train of thought.  If I was president, this would be. . .remedied.

[Phoenix Wright]

21 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

To reiterate--Trump is not an idiot. He is a con-artist (and a damn good one). He acts the way he acts because he has correctly surmised the level at which the people he is trying to con are to be engaged, if he is to hit his mark. He's operating at a level where 1/3 of the country would swear they had just received the worlds greatest snickers bar if he shat in their mouth, then boycott the Hershey Corporation to protest #FakeChocolate. Viewed in this light? Absolutely nothing he does is baffling. There is a method to the madness. 

this is giving him far too much credit. for a man who should have nearly 70 years experience, his command of the english language resembles a child's. his ideas are either poor, or not based on reality. he, and many of those who support him, are the direct result of this nation's hard-on for identity politics coupled with a supremely depressing lack of education. 

also calling jon stewart a political hack is a tip for how little you know (and are even willing to know) about him. 

[John Denver Fan]

I saw on TV last night the Bill for the tax cuts it got passed, but they are doing it again tonight if I am correct the Republicans want it passed by Chrismas, I learnt on the news it will be temporary, lasting around 5-10 years. The Democrats didn't want the Bill passed and they had to pull out protesters in the Senate. I guess Donald Trump really wants the Bill passed

[Zasplach]

5 minutes ago, John Denver Fan said:

I saw on TV last night the Bill for the tax cuts it got passed, but they are doing it again tonight if I am correct the Republicans want it passed by Chrismas, I learnt on the news it will be temporary, lasting around 5-10 years. The Democrats didn't want the Bill passed and they had to pull out protesters in the Senate. I guess Donald Trump really wants the Bill passed

Combination of things, the House passed a version of the tax cut bill that would have broken the rules of reconciliation that were set before the process so the Senate had to make some slight alterations that the house then passed this morning to ensure the two bills were identical.  The personal tax cuts are temporary, but the corporate tax cuts are permanent, this is a combination of things mostly relating to the rules of reconciliation that no bill can go into effect that will raise the deficits for 10 years, so because the personal tax breaks will raise the deficit, they would have required 60 votes to be permanent (something similar happened with the Bush tax cuts and when they came around President Obama/ the Republicans make the tax cuts for like 60%of the country permanent).  So the corporate tax rate is set at 21% for the foreseeable future.  President Trump really needed a major piece of legislation passed, anything really and this was the easiest way to do it.  It's hard for Congresspeople to go back to their constituents and say 'yeah you gave my party control of all 3 branches of government and we did basically nothing but appoint federal judges' and then expect them to vote for you.  They could have risked losing more senate seats like Alabama which would have been a nightmare for the GOP. 

[Lord Raven]

“I think Democrats are not going to be interested in entitlement reform, so I would not expect to see that on the agenda,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said at a breakfast sponsored by Axios. “What the Democrats are willing to do is important, because in the Senate, with rare exceptions like the tax bill, we have to have Democratic involvement.”

- mitch mcconnell

seriously what a piece of shit. tax reform is exempt because they wanted THEIR own tax reform

[Zasplach]

13 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

“I think Democrats are not going to be interested in entitlement reform, so I would not expect to see that on the agenda,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said at a breakfast sponsored by Axios. “What the Democrats are willing to do is important, because in the Senate, with rare exceptions like the tax bill, we have to have Democratic involvement.”

- mitch mcconnell

seriously what a piece of shit. tax reform is exempt because they wanted THEIR own tax reform

I'm such a bad reference to an average American for a variety of reasons, but partly because I can see the merits of both ideologies and define myself outside of them, but I may not support this version of 'tax reform', misleading label for it, but I can certainly understand why Majority Leader McConnell had to do it.  The big job of politics is doing what you think is best for the country, but the means by which you do it is by winning elections and not getting this bill passed was putting every Republican in mortal danger.  How do you get any of your base to come out and vote for you if you come home and tell them, 'you sent us to Washington for 2 years with the house, senate, and presidency and all we delivered is some federal judges?  Talk about a on sale.  Basically every American believes in a government that does stuff for them, so you expect your representatives to do stuff for you.  Doing nothing for two years would have put not only the House in easy reach for the Dems, it would also put the Senate within reach; not only could DEMS win AZ and NV, it could also put seats like TN, MS, NE, and TX at risk, talk about a nightmare for the GOP.  It's a bill that doesn't really do as promised, ie it doesn't simplify the tax code and it doesn't do a ton for middle class tax payers, especially not in 10 years, but I don't think it'll be much detriment in the short run, just political fodder.   

[Lord Raven]

Yes, and using this tax bill for political purposes rather than ideological purposes or to help the American people isn’t moral behavior.

You’re arguing that this is okay.

[Zasplach]

I'm not arguing it's okay or it's not okay, rather I'm arguing it is politics and it's what the American people want, I'm arguing it is.  Politics is merely the execution of the people's will, people sent a Republican to the White House and sent a majority of Republicans to the House and the Senate, that clearly states that they wanted some sort of 'conservative' policy, lower taxes, trickle-down esque economic policy, limited action on immigration reform, pro-life policy, and pulling back on regulations, maybe even deconstructing the ACA.  How the Republicans got control is irrelevant, there wasn't anything illegal done, maybe unethical, but nothing outright against the law.  The American people act like this is what they want because they continue to elect the same type of people for the job and we continue to act like business as usual is what we want.  I've always been found of idioms and the line 'people get the government they deserve' seems to be truer and truer everyday.  The American people sent Republicans to Congress to do something and tax breaks for businesses and the wealthy seem to be as orthodox thing as Republicans believe in as anything, the fact that senators like Flake, Corker, Collins, and Murkowski who all have bucked President Trump's agenda in one way or another voted for this bill says that's as true as anything.  Their caucus  is  divided on issues like immigration, trade, and infrastructure (govt spending really) so what is and isn't 'orthodoxy' is up for debate and a fight, but the fact that every Republican but a handful of House members in NY, NJ, and CA who knew this would instantly raise the taxes on their constituents and that would probably piss them off shows you that this kind of policy is what the GOP stands for.  Election have consequences my  friend, that is idiom that should and must remain true because despite the anti-majoritarian aspects of the American Republic, majority rule is still how our country works; like it, love it , hate it, this is how it works.  

[Phoenix Wright]

the people wanted a democrat. in fact, most people didn't want a republican at all.

your argument is not wholly incorrect, but it lacks nuance. the brush you are using paints too broad a stroke in relation to american politics. 

[Tryhard]

So one thing I'm wondering - is the general consensus on this tax bill from people going to be "hey, I'm getting something"? While most middle and working class incomes are going to get a tax cut from what I understand, they have tied a lot of 'sunset provisions' to those that means they will lessen and then expire by 2027, and another thing I heard is that 50% of Americans will be due to pay more in taxes than what they are currently paying by that time. Essentially, it seems like they are getting a slight tax cut now, which isn't permanent, while the corporate tax cut has been made permanent.

But I've seen some people who while they aren't fond of Trump, defending it because "it's extra cash in my pocket". While that is true, you will get a tax break initially, is this a common view?

Because the way I've seen it, Americans tend to be more "obsessed" with taxes than any other people I know - they seem to talk about it most. Perhaps it's because they haven't ever really seen their government functioning like European countries and actually offering good national services like healthcare and social programs which ends up being far more beneficial for the society in the long term than slightly lower taxes. It feels very short-sighted and like selling out to corporations, once again.

(The other thing that seems to be getting little coverage is that this tax bill apparently cuts the individual mandate in Obamacare as well, which is estimated to lead to 13 million less people on healthcare by 2027)

Edited December 23, 2017 by Tryhard

[Johann]

People who favorably view a minor tax cut with long term impacts on government services looming are as nearsighted as it gets. The tax bill was apparently signed today, which means that Medicare is gonna see a substantial (I've heard $25 billion) cuts starting 2018, so perhaps that will get some people's attention before the elections in November.

[Zasplach]

25 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

the people wanted a democrat. in fact, most people didn't want a republican at all.

your argument is not wholly incorrect, but it lacks nuance. the brush you are using paints too broad a stroke in relation to american politics. 

I agree with the substance of your argument, yes most of us voted for Mrs. Clinton, but not enough for her to be President and not enough in the places it counted.  And nuance requires subtlety and the American people lack it, if you want to talk about the specifics of American politics we would have to look at individual states and individual congressional districts and to be frank such specifics would give us no clarification on the overarching spectrum of the American situation at hand.  I speak in generalities because they are generally true, no more, no less (though I'm not subtle by nature, that is a fair observation).  We have to deal with what is.  

 

18 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

So one thing I'm wondering - is the general consensus on this tax bill from people going to be "hey, I'm getting something"? While most middle and working class incomes are going to get a tax cut from what I understand, they have tied a lot of 'sunset provisions' to those that means they will lessen and then expire by 2027, and another thing I heard is that 50% of Americans will be due to pay more in taxes than what they are currently paying by that time. Essentially, it seems like they are getting a slight tax cut now, which isn't permanent, while the corporate tax cut has been made permanent.

But I've seen some people who while they aren't fond of Trump, defending it because "it's extra cash in my pocket". While that is true, you will get a tax break initially, is this a common view?

Because the way I've seen it, Americans tend to be more "obsessed" with taxes than any other people I know - they seem to talk about it most. Perhaps it's because they haven't ever really seen their government functioning like European countries and actually offering good national services like healthcare and social programs which ends up being far more beneficial for the society in the long term than slightly lower taxes. It feels very short-sighted and like selling out to corporations, once again.

(The other thing that seems to be getting little coverage is that this tax bill apparently cuts the individual mandate in Obamacare as well, but is estimated to lead to 13 million less people on healthcare by 2027)

It's hard to really say why most Americans don't like this bill, it's currently at about Trump's popularity rating, somewhere under 40%.  I think the general perspective is that it's a bill will raise the deficit and mostly help wealthy Americans, and I think most of us think rich people help themselves alright.  Americans have a heart for helping the less fortunate, but we mostly have an innate fear of authoritarianism; it's why many of our ancestors and parents and etc left their country of origins because of the obligations they placed on our forefathers (it's why my family came to this country almost 400 years ago and it's why different wings of my family kept coming to this country) and taxation is just a form of compulsion, a form we all agree to as a society, but taking from some to help others, sometimes against their will, is a form of authoritarianism and our forefathers either fought authoritarianism or ran from it.  I'm quiet certain that's why the socialistic states that exist in Europe doesn't exist here, for better or for worse. But this bill is mostly unpopular because it's bad and poorly thought out, I will agree with @Lord Raven about that.  I would have likely endorsed true 'tax reform', but this is a mess.  And to be fair to the American system, there are lots of good public services that many people have provided for them, but upper-middle class people tend to view themselves proudly as 'self-reliant' and want to build themselves up.

6 minutes ago, Johann said:

People who favorably view a minor tax cut with long term impacts on government services looming are as nearsighted as it gets. The tax bill was apparently signed today, which means that Medicare is gonna see a substantial (I've heard $25 billion) cuts starting 2018, so perhaps that will get some people's attention before the elections in November.

There isn't a direct one-to-one connection between this bill and possible 'entitlement reform'.  Many Democrats have speculated that this bill will precipitate 'welfare reform' from the Republicans because of the deficit spikes, but the Republicans, just like was quoted in the last page, could truly sit on their hands about Medicare, SS, and Medicaid and do nothing about them if they really want to.  It will be interesting to see what next year leads to. 

[Johann]

1 minute ago, Zasplach said:

There isn't a direct one-to-one connection between this bill and possible 'entitlement reform'.  Many Democrats have speculated that this bill will precipitate 'welfare reform' from the Republicans because of the deficit spikes, but the Republicans, just like was quoted in the last page, could truly sit on their hands about Medicare, SS, and Medicaid and do nothing about them if they really want to.  It will be interesting to see what next year leads to. 

They don't want to.

[Tryhard]

Probably not exactly correct to refer to those European states as "socialistic". They have social programs which I referred to, yes, but it comes more under welfare state than socialism itself, which can be in conservative governments, like the UK and Germany for example. But that's just semantics.

Yeah, personally I foresee the Republicans doing so, under the reason that they need to in order to control the deficit, despite adding at least a trillion dollars to it with this tax bill.

"Fiscal conservatism" indeed.

Edited December 23, 2017 by Tryhard

[Zasplach]

6 minutes ago, Johann said:

They don't want to.

the Post wants my money, so I can't read it, but I'll assume it's Paul Ryan saying he wants to talk about welfare reform and yeah, he always says that; he's been doing it for 10 plus years.  

On the other hand, Senator McConnell, a man who holds a much tighter majority and has a lot more power than very wonky, not so strategic Speaker Ryan says he doesn't expect his chamber to even bring it up next year.  I'll believe the majority leader's pragmatism.

 https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/21/mitch-mcconnell-does-not-expect-to-take-up-entitlement-reform-next-year.html

Edited December 23, 2017 by Zasplach
bad grammar

[Johann]

7 minutes ago, Zasplach said:

the Post wants my money, so I can't read it, but I'll assume it's Paul Ryan saying he wants to talk about welfare reform and yeah, he always says that; he's been doing it for 10 plus years.  

On the other hand, Senator McConnell, a man who holds a much tighter majority and has a lot more power than very wonky, not so strategic Speaker Ryan says he doesn't expect his chamber to even bring it up next year.  I'll believe the majoritarian leaders pragmatism.

 https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/21/mitch-mcconnell-does-not-expect-to-take-up-entitlement-reform-next-year.html

If they're not doing it in 2018, then it means they're planning it for 2019, after the elections. This isn't a sudden change of heart, it's part of a greater strategy.

edit: Yes, the Washington Post article quotes Ryan saying things which are also quoted in your link, so I think you have enough of the picture. The remainder of the article mostly talks about disputes on the Senate floor about the contents and impacts of the bill.

Edited December 23, 2017 by Johann

[Zasplach]

7 minutes ago, Johann said:

If they're not doing it in 2018, then it means they're planning it for 2019, after the elections. This isn't a sudden change of heart, it's part of a greater strategy.

There is already speculation that Speaker Ryan is planning on retiring after this next year and I suspect he will if he loses the majority, which seems to be at best for the GOP 50-50, probably more like 40-60) he will.  Talking about entitlement reform now is more about him covering himself in his own mind so he can not feel so bad about raising the deficit willingly.  I suspect there will be a time when we can all come to the table and talk about how literally 1/3 of the federal budget is required to go to medicare, SS and medicaid and how 1/3 is basically required to go to military spending, but the country/congress is too divided right now, so a consensus seems unlikely, ergo 'entitlement reform' won't happen soon.

 

12 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Probably not exactly correct to refer to those European states as "socialistic". They have social programs which I referred to, yes, but it comes more under welfare state than socialism itself, which can be in conservative governments, like the UK and Germany for example. But that's just semantics.

Yeah, personally I foresee the Republicans doing so, under the reason that they need to in order to control the deficit, despite adding at least a trillion dollars to it with this tax bill.

"Fiscal conservatism" indeed.

And yeah, Republicans only are staunch 'fiscal conservatives' when there's a Dem in the White House, it's partly what's become so distasteful about GOP politics, talking out both sides of their mouths/.  

Edited December 23, 2017 by Zasplach

[Johann]

2 minutes ago, Zasplach said:

There is already speculation that Speaker Ryan is planning on retiring after this next year and I suspect he will if he loses the majority, which seems to be at best for the GOP 50-50, probably more like 40-60).  Talking about entitlement reform now is more about him covering himself in his own mind so he can not feel so bad about raising the deficit willingly.  I suspect there will be a time when we can all come to the table and talk about how literally 1/3 of the federal budget is required to go to medicare, SS and medicaid and how 1/3 is basically required to go to military spending, but the country/congress is too divided right now, so a consensus seems unlikely, ergo 'entitlement reform' won't happen soon.

Priority one for Republicans is maintaining their Senate and House majority in 2018. A consensus beyond party lines isn't necessary for them because they would only need a simple majority in both to have budget reconciliation.

[Tryhard]

While I don't think what you're saying is necessarily wrong, I would never put a bet on the Republicans to not cut Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. It seems like they want to.

[Zasplach]

14 minutes ago, Johann said:

Priority one for Republicans is maintaining their Senate and House majority in 2018. A consensus beyond party lines isn't necessary for them because they would only need a simple majority in both to have budget reconciliation.

I agree with your first sentiment 100%, more if I could, but I think your idea comes to the wrong conclusion.  They've already passed a bill for their base without a single yes from the 'D's', something most Americans in the middle, yes even the center-right don't like, now they won't touch anything without at least some Democratic support.  The tax bill will help get out their base to at least have a chance of rivaling the Democrats base, so know they have to fight for every vote in the middle to have a chance at keeping the house.  Touching entitlements will put every seat but the very reddest at risk, even senate seats in TN, TX, MS, and NE.  Much too risky.

 

14 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

While I don't think what you're saying is necessarily wrong, I would never put a bet on the Republicans to not cut Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. It seems like they want to.

While I won't disagree with you is that some on the far right seem to have a hard on to completely blow up the social-net state, any societal protections for the poor, weak, downtrodden, elderly, etc.  I think the center-right (of which I generally label myself, if messily because I don't fit well in any ideology per se) generally believe in those programs, I myself do and I think many, not all, but many Republicans in Congress also do, they just view the current amount the country is required to spend on them to be alarming and potentially destabilizing if they continue to balloon, leastwise that's how I fell.  The country needs some sort of consensus to run a cleaner fiscal house, I think a balanced-budget amendment is dumb because sometimes deficit spending is  necessary, but when times are good, like they are now, the feds shouldn't have to run up huge deficits like they are right now, it's ridiculous.  The people in general need to pay more taxes, but we also have to decide how much the elderly get from the federal coffers and how much we as a society can help the poor, it requires an adult conversation that neither party seems to be up for.  I had hoped the Clinton years would illicit more bipartisan support for a 'responsible' government, but alas.

Edited December 23, 2017 by Zasplach
spelling

[Johann]

3 minutes ago, Zasplach said:

I agree with your first sentiment 100%, more if I could, but I think your idea comes to the wrong conclusion.  They've already passed a bill for their base without a single yes from the 'D's', something most Americans in the middle, yes even the center-right don't like, now they won't touch anything without at least some Democratic support.  The tax bill will help get out their base to at least have a chance of rivaling the Democrats base, so know they have to fight for every vote in the middle to have a chance at keeping the house.  Touching entitlements will put every seat but the very reddest at risk, even senate seats in TN, TX, MS, and NE.  Much too risky.

Let me grab some stuff from that link I posted above, since you won't be able to see it otherwise:

Quote

“You also have to bring spending under control. And not discretionary spending. That isn't the driver of our debt. The driver of our debt is the structure of Social Security and Medicare for future beneficiaries,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said last week.

While whipping votes for the tax bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) attacked “liberal programs” for the poor and said Congress needed to stop wasting Americans' money.

“We're spending ourselves into bankruptcy,” Hatch said. “Now, let's just be honest about it: We're in trouble. This country is in deep debt. You don't help the poor by not solving the problems of debt, and you don't help the poor by continually pushing more and more liberal programs through.”

Trump has not clarified which specific programs would be affected by the proposed “welfare reform,” though congressional Republicans are signaling that they aim to impose work requirements on food stamps and direct cash assistance for the poor.

Cutting Medicare is a pretty significant part of the GOP agenda. This is one of the big reasons they want Executive and Legislative control in the first place. The strategy is to not touch it in 2018 as to not screw up their chances of maintaining majority, and then go to work on it in early 2019.

[Zasplach]

7 minutes ago, Johann said:

Let me grab some stuff from that link I posted above, since you won't be able to see it otherwise:

Cutting Medicare is a pretty significant part of the GOP agenda. This is one of the big reasons they want Executive and Legislative control in the first place. The strategy is to not touch it in 2018 as to not screw up their chances of maintaining majority, and then go to work on it in early 2019.

This may very well be true, I think you are slightly conflating the statements of a few, admittedly influential, senators and a general policy.  Remember President Trump, unlike most GOP candidates, ran on not cutting SS, Medicare, and Medicaid (I understand he lies, but I suspect some old people may stop supporting him if he lies on this, unlike the other lies).  But if they have control of both the house and the senate after next year's mid-terms, I would argue that the American populous generally wants 'entitlement reform' (now I understand that gerrymandering is a thing, but +10 for the Democrats will ensure they have the House, maybe even the Senate, so the American people have recourse).  So if we have a GOP senate and House in 2019 I would think that the country wants entitlement reform, what other conclusion should I come to?